Adriel wrote: Sacrament "a visible sign of an inward grace, especially one of the solemn Christian rites considered to have been instituted by Jesus Christ to symbolize or confer grace: the sacraments of the Protestant churches are baptism and the Lord's Supper"
This is a man made definition, Adriel. Not valid. BTW, the 'confering of grace' comes as a relic from the "dung hill of popery", the second line reformers, say the puritans, would say.
Evangelical protestant We are called to live unto the Lord. The meaning of 'sacred' is to be set apart unto holiness. By this definition then every thing in our lives should be sacred. We should not take that the ordinances are differently made sacred by a mystical hocus pocus of doctrinal imagination or belief which again comes from popery.
Carl in Asheville wrote: Hmmm. I'm proud to take a stand for the LORD. I'm proud to be born of God. I'm proud to be a child of God. I'm proud (and not a ashamed) to suffer for the Name of Christ. I'm proud that I can boldly go where no mere man can go and that is to the Throne of Grace in times of need. I'm proud to affirm and proclaim Jesus and His words before men.
Pride has nothing to do in a Christian. We can be thankful for priviledges coming our way, not proud, as all is given out of grace. We owe everything.
Proverbs 29:23 KJV A man's pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit.
Joel wrote: B. McCausland, thank you. The whole book of Revelation is full of figures and pictures as well as other End Times books in Scripture. Dispensationalism comes from trying to take everything in Revelation literally.
Yeah, such a twisted view it is. The reading of revelation 20 flows well when understanding the thousand years as the epoch of grace preceeding the finalising of the day of the Lord.
See eternity explains sequence of happenings to subdits living in the context of time with quantifying terms of their own perception.
A thousand in this case points to a determined epoch, say a particular period of time in history.
James Thomas wrote: Where is the biblical warrant that demands the thousand years to be interpreted literally a thousand years ?
There are literal narratives in Scriptures, but poetical books, the book of Revelation, some passages in Ezequiel, or Daniel are not extrictly narratives and this is because they can not figure into a literal interpretation. Besides much of the prophecy writings can often incorporate figures of speech.
E. G. If revelation 20 is meant to be literal, how a literal physical chain can be used to bind a wicked spirit? And how long or strong does the chain need to be? If you take the text as literal this makes no sense. But if you understand that the passage is talking about God holding Satan in restrain, as a dog on a lead, for him to fulfill his purposes, it does.
Or how is it that the first resurrection mention in the same chapter grants those experiencing it reigning with Christ? Because the first resurrection speaks of the new birth.
"We are risen with Christ unto new life" "I assign unto you a kingdom"
So if such parts cannot stand when taken literally, how a mere number can in a book full of symbolism? Of necessity a literal understanding only obscures sense and obliterates its true meaning.
Joel wrote: All very good comments, brothers. May God bless us all with clear understanding of the Scriptures. The word â€śeschatologyâ€ť is not found in the English Bible, mine are least, but we can still use it although it means different things to each of us.
Eschatology comes defined as "the part of theology concerned with death, judgement, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind" from which some chance into the mental gymnastics of timing events and sequences at their fancy without scripture's clear sanction or information.
Mike wrote: Good examples, B., thanks! I guess my issue is not with using 1000 as a figure of speech so much as using the term millenium when the term is definition limited to a real time period. Unlike 1000, millenium is poorly used when used as a figure.
Surely, let's be mindful that the term 'millenium' is not in Scripture, but has been superimposed on Scripture by man made systems of eschatology.
John UK wrote: 1. ... God had a great concern for the poor in our midst. ... laws were given which assisted the poor and ensured they did not starve to death.
2. ... the new apostolic church operated what we would call today an anti-capitalist system.
3. ... "Christian Communism" is probably more valid than "Christian Capitalism"
1. Yes, oppression never has been in God's agenda, hence his multiple mercies in place to assist others in times of strait as a coping mechanism, but not as a philosophical theory of government as communism is.
2. Sorry John, but the NT as much as the OT is full of enterprise, personal initiative towards profit making in view to be able to help others with it when needed. This is capitalism.
3. Communism is a flawed theory that does not work because it deprives the individual from personal initiative and responsibility which were God given from the beginning to man. Communism alocates and redistributes wealth by means of the the state to provide personal needs. Biblically this is not ordained. "And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you; That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without and that ye may have lack of nothing"
Mike wrote: And we should discern the figures from things that aren't. The Bible didn't come up with the term millenium. Why use a word that has specific meaning to describe a figure? When you say we are in the millenium, you are saying we are in a specific period of time. When the Bible means to convey a non-specific period, doesn't it often use the term "..a time.."? Eccl. 3 as example.
Though a thousand figures as a quantifying noun in Scripture , also it also figures at times as an hyperbole figure of speech.
"For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills."
"He has remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations."
"Thy neck is like the tower of David builded for an armoury, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men."
John UK wrote: Sister B, there might have been just cause for upset, if Bro US really imagined and was portraying that folks in the UK really thought that the services provided by the NHS were somehow delivered without any cost to anyone. ... in which case, he would have been attempting to upset us, telling us in no uncertain terms that folks who think the NHS services are free, are without doubt fools. But none of us in the UK say that the services are "free", but "free at the point of use". There is a world of difference between these two.
Surely, taxation always falls along such benefits. Take care
US There is no harm if you wish to rant till you are blue about the ills of a welfare system. However insisting that 'free at the point of use' is not literally true is ridiculous. We all know it is financed somehow. You are playing with words to rant on a topic. Bye.....
US Please focus and annalize what Adriel's statement says:
"free at the point of use" which is true.
We are not dismissing how this is made possible or denying how it is financed, neither its viability.
Sir, it appears you like playing semantics.
Semantics is when we insist in giving a meaning different to the obvious by subterfuge E. G. Playing semantics is denying that a child can be known also as a kid, a boy or a daughter. Any of these names does not invalidate the first, but semantics will insist it does in a given setting.
This is what you often do. You give words meaning beyond what they actually have along their own context gearing then into another sense. Not a good practice.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: You could say it is prepaid through taxes and high fuel cost. It is like a buy ohe get one free offer, the second item is at no extra cost but if you didn't spend the money for the first one you wouldn't be able to enjoy the second one "free". That doesn't even count the cost of excessive delays, limited time with an actual physician, denied procedures and even out of pocket co-pays. To say it is free at any point is at best, misleading.
Playing on semantics again, US, or seeking to find a loophole behind a true statement to quarell and rant about for a while? Though all you say is true, there is no need for it as Adriel's statement is literately true and can stand on its own as veridic a hundred per cent: Though the service is financed somehow, "nobody needs to pay *at the point of its use*", this is what it literally means "Free at the point of use".
The Quiet Christian wrote: Deep question, John. In the Lord's incredible Providence, He has ordained that we should ask Him and He should answer. The Lord is so far above us that often the "why" of why He does things this way is beyond me. What think thee on said topic?
"O LORD God of hosts, how long wilt thou be *angry* against the prayer of thy people?"
There are prayers God will not answer because the issues are the direct consequence of man's sin collectively which need addressed.
Prayer is not a merry-go-round charm, or a mere wishful thinking that magically may erase man's wrong doings without a consequence.
Prayer is answered when people *turn*. See prayer is not the same as turning, but prayer and turning go together,
"If my people, ... pray, ... *and turn* from their wicked ways; *then* will I hear ... "
Eventually God might 'shake' the heavens and the earth to put an end to an era of sin, but he does this often by bringing peoples to their knees with all the consequences attached to it.
Bro John, May the Lord guide your efforts in the correct track that you may know the paths in which your zeal might be fruitfull in his service at this present age.
CES Never truth comes affected by colour, culture, history, geography, taste, preferences, experience, shapes or sizes.
Stevenr We trust God working inside the parameters of his laws and statutes, not according to our reasoning and logic. He expects and commands us to be prudent, yet he has a blue print for the theory of state, law and order, by which refined western governments have thrived, in contrast to tribal rule. The two things are mixed up in the American way of thinking regarding the issue.
Disclaimer, American friends, sincere apologies, not wishing with this to play the nationalism card here.
One wonders wrote: Didnâ€™t mean to leave out part of quote that refers to the carrying the sword for areas in which there is known present danger like a church that is in a neighborhood that has 7 homicides within 2 miles of it. Hope that puts it back in context
Well, that is what makes the difference. A society having 7 homicides within 2 miles is a sick society. Hence the armed population.
Stever It is not cultural, is about different shades of law, order and government. Americans are intended or programmed to help the state police. Other societies trust God by giving that job entirely to who it is given, the state, as established in Romans 13